The Role of Novice Status

I was interested to see how thoughts on being a novice in critique seem to align quite closely to ideas that are becoming more common in design pedagogy about the role of a novice designer. In both cases, it seems, a more informed view of what have traditionally been called “novices” leads to a more nuanced view of what a “normal” novice looks like. In fact, in design education, a design “novice” has actually become an unhelpful differentiator, mostly because of the increased role of the designer’s background in understanding how they think about design.

So bringing the context back closer to critique, do designers and critics actually share a lot of underlying thought processes and patterns of critique? Even while the designer might use a significantly more internalized critique process than an explicit critic (although this is context-dependent as well). I think there is definitely a correlation between critique and design education, mostly in the development of design judgement (which seems to be a largely critique-oriented attribute), but I’d like to see where other people feel connections might exist. Another divide, which might play into this situation as well is the differentiation in the past century or so between high art and low art, with low art (craft-based disciplines like product design) seen as less important or worthy of respect than high art (fine art). I wonder if this differentiation also plays into what elements are most important in the critique process, at least internally. For “low art,” the cultural perspective (in terms of designing things that are seen by others as culturally valuable) is foregrounded, while in “high art,” structural or formal properties, along with a distinct sliver of the historical-cultural context is foregrounded. No complete thoughts here…just throwing this out there.

Meta

4 comments

Your first point brought up something that I’ve struggled with before, but our last class just made pop up again. If expert understanding is though of as a different degree of exposure, and experts are just more normalized in their thinking, it’s harder to make the differentiation between normal and expert. I think this is especially true in this field. A designer working for three years in an incredibly challenging environment is likely to be more of an expert than someone working ten years in a ho-hum SSDD position.

To your second point, I also wonder the degree to which exposure to different types of critique play into development of design judgment. More exposure to critique would be better in all cases, but I would argue that having an expert-level internalized critique process requires expert-level external critique experience. Is this the case though? As our field continues to fragment into more specialized roles and types of companies, it feels like the critique one develops may grow to fit one of those specializations. Transferring to another specialty carries across some skills, but I would argue that ability to critique therein–similar to our discussion of video game “expertise” from class–is only partially transferred.

On a slightly related topic, there doesn’t seem to be much argument for the other way of approaching expert knowledge, as we talked about with Eaton. If experts are the only ones that truly “get it” then why would anyone listen to them? In aesthetic criticism, that way of thinking would put them all out of a job, especially someone like Roger Ebert. That way of thinking about criticism works well in the sciences, but I don’t believe it does in art.

do designers and critics actually share a lot of underlying thought processes and patterns of critique?

An entire dissertation could be done around this question, which can actually be framed and investigated empirically.

Lacking such a reference, I can tell you from my own experience that yes, the really are very similar thought processes inasmuch as they critique. I do think the orientations and purposes to which the critiques are put differ. Critics tend to emphasize an explication of the relationship between a work as a specific material form and its meanings/impacts in society. They write lengthy treatises about such concerns–and stop there. Designers consider those issues as well, but often not as deeply or reflectively (i.e., they don’t generally write treatises!) because they are always already moving towards the generation of new concepts and solutions.

But I do believe the core act of criticism is fundamentally similar no matter who is doing it: a professional critic, a professional designer, and an ordinary person talking to a friend about a movie or book. What differs is the analytic ambition and the conversion of such insights to action. Critics do the former but not so much the latter; designers do the latter but less of the former; and the ordinary person typically does neither. (This is a very crude sketch, of course!)

I agree it’s harder. We all know film buffs who didn’t go to school and who don’t work in the movie business; they just love film and have lots of experience and sophisticated ideas about it. There are self-taught designers. Think about how Kevin describes how he got good at music. It wasn’t formal schooling, and he admits it took him decades. If we listened to him, we might consider him an expert musician. Perhaps (I don’t know) if he sat in a round table in the Music School, he might feel out of place.

I would distinguish between normal/expert and amateur/professional. They often overlap but they are distinct. There are amateur experts and there are professionals without expertise. We call the latter “politicians.” Just kidding. Sort of.

Looking back on this conversation, I am intrigued by the introduction of these two dichotomies, “normal/expert” and “amateur/professional.” It seems that the second is an ascribed role, while the former actually recognizes expertise or ability (but perhaps that’s a simplification on my part). I understand how someone might recognize their “person” as being an amateur or professional, or somewhere else on that continuum, based on their personal judgement of their position. But I suspect that society also makes this distinction quite naturally, with modern technology buffs recognizing a middle ground called “pro-sumer.”

But the normal/expert continuum is probably more aligned with my interests, since it deals with the internalized processes of critique and ways of knowing, rather than a public presentation or perception of those processes. I agree with your first post, Jeff, where you pose the focus of criticism as subordinate to that person’s profession or role. But it seems that critique processes underly all of design or critique practice, with only the public visibility of those processes changing. Not sure what the implications of this viewpoint might be, but still thinking…